Thursday, June 10, 2010

I have learned many things in my life, and one rule that has served me well through thick and thin: No one ever wants to hear a child use the phrase "double-penetrated." Ever.

As far as the joke goes, "kids today are exposed to so much crazy shit that their parents don't know about," it's basically the same as when SMBC did it two years ago (at some point someone should catalog all the times xkcd has had the same joke as SMBC and put it in one place.)

That said, the joke is executed about as well as can be. Some people were criticizing the phrasing etc, but I actually think - given the gross terribleness of a kid talking about double penetration - the writing is not bad on this one. The word "gosh!" at the end is important, it serves to portray the child as a pinnacle of innocence, and contrast with the clearly not innocent sentence he's just said. The only text that doesn't feel right is the father's; if you are embarrassed by something or at least want to keep it secret, I think saying "no don't look at that!" or "give that back!" is more likely than "I am going to say exactly what this thing is, for the benefit of outside readers looking in on my life!" But I guess that's what happens when you have to explain through text what you have drawn.

------------------------------Kirk will be writing the next post (unless things go horribly wrong) which is good because I need a day to catch up with all the commenting and e-mailing and such that have been happening around these parts.

What, like two hours ago in the previous post I said xkcd would fail the Bechdel test and now for like the first time ever Randy's put two woman & no dudes as his characterless stick people characters I CALL SHENANIGANS.

Maybe Randall could stop trying to make Deep Statements About Mortality & The World until he actually figures out what he wants to say. Unless he's realized that he does want to say, specifically, that we must perpetually fetishize our childhood and seek thrilling innocent adventure forever.

I'm not too sure about blog etiquette (yea, this is the only "blog" I "follow" ... I sure hope I used those words right... this is a blog, right?! :D)

at any rate!, just throwing a reply to aloria here (from the last group of blog postings on 750) - "Imagine a world where we all based the validity of our opinions on how many people disagree/agree with us."

... That's pretty much the world of Wikipedia! (wisdom of the masses!) ... and on that note, I just want to ask a general question (unrelated to xkcd) ... does anyone else get annoyed behind the general premise of how information is added to wikipedia? first, one adds information from memory / a random article, then that person or others go out and find (different) sources to back that information up ... if wikipedia was held to the same standards as academic students, it'd be expelled!

Finally, the new comic ... (752) ... its um ... I was half expecting it to turn into something sex related ... so I must say, I'm rather relieved it makes little to no sense... :D

Carl, you are seriously uptight when it comes to sex. Yes, I'm sure everyone can agree a child saying 'double-penetrated' is a bad thing, but the way you talk about it sounds like you're talking about pedophilia or rape. Relax.

Its not just in this post, though. Also how you think no one ever casually talks about sex. Its really not that uncommon among people who are close.

Anyway, I do agree this comic is okay at best. Which is sadly still an improvement.

@Dan:But that's the beauty of Wikipedia: it's self-improving and self-correcting. There's no comparison to the academic world because there CAN'T be; they're different entities. If you'll excuse the alliteration, Wikipedia is a neural network of knowledge, something a single academic student could never be.

752: Why is the blonde driving? Was she sucked into the brunette's "go on the most extreme adventures or you'll die full of regret" nonsense? Can somebody please add an extra panel of their graves, with snarky phrases on the gravestones?

Also, when is Randall going to say something about that teenager who got lost at sea trying to sail around the world? He's missing a prime opportunity to white-knight about an Ambitious Girl.

God is 752 bad. Pretentious, angsty, incoherent and pandering. He might as well just have a person in the first panel say "I'm worried about things" and in the next panel say "I'm doing something nerdy". I don't know why he had to include the snake. Maybe it wouldn't be complete without a non sequitur. And what is up with Randall's obsession with storm chasers? I guess after the runaway success of 640 (not really, but it looks good compared to this week's comics) he decided he could add storm chasers to any comic and it would be funny, even if there wasn't a joke.

I think maybe the line in panel 2 was supposed to be the punchline, but then Randall noticed it wasn't funny and instead of starting over (and throwing out those panels with such beautifully rendered hair!) he kept on adding stuff.

Why not just "eek! a snake! I hate snakes!" or something like that?Also I love how the first panel is possibly the worst set up for anything ever. It's just... it has nothing to do with what the other character says, except for having a few words in common. Fuck the dialogue is awful

I think this is funnier, though I basically stole the joke. Also: man, these faceless stick figures are creepy on close up. I had to draw in Megan's face so that she isn't so creepy anymore (though her xkcd backstory doesn't help much).

752 is basically 167 (http://xkcd.com/167/) but with any sense of entertainment removed. Whereas 167 was a cute way of making a Take That against overbearing nihilists, 762's only "joke" is that the comic starts as a self-extential comic but then A TWIST: IT'S NOT!

There's a possibility, as pointed out by someone in the forum, that the girl is meant to be also afraid of storms, which is a bit better... but it's also thrown off by the alt-text.

Speaking of which, the forums are their usual self: a whole bunch of people trying to dance around the fact that they don't find it funny, either by trying to come up with some sort of "deep" hidden meaning (blissfully unaware that if a comic's purpose is solely in a hidden meaning it's inherently bad anyway) or... just not saying it like they should.

But bonus points for being the first comic in 100 comics to actually have a mostly-female cast! ....aaand then minus points for making one of them have an irrational fear.

It's obviously a symbol for a penis, revealing that Blonde is a lesbian (in xkcd world.) Megan is also a lesbian, but in the closet. She is secretly in love with Blonde. Blonde is considering this.Wanting to become a "storm chaser" shows her desire to be more spontaneous and less introspective.

I don't think I need to explain the immense symbolism of the actual storm.

I don't think there's a reputable, educational institution in the whole U.S. of A. that will accept wikipedia as a reliable source. I know the professors at the campus I work will fail any paper that references that shite site.

Obviously Randall wants to be a storm chaser REALLY bad, but he is afraid/doesn't live in the midwest.

This comic is all about what he wants to do and the depression he feels putting it off year after year to instead be an icon to similarly afflicted nerds who watch Twister twice a year and sigh wistfully at the science or lack thereof.

WTF! I've just paid a visit to the xkcd forums and for some reason many of them seem to think the two girls are lesbians. Why do xkcd fans have to make everything be about sex?... oh... wait, I think I understand.

The blonde girl, when she says she's afraid of snakes, is implying that she actually suffers from pallophobia and is thus a lesbian. The brunette seems to have tumbled to this implication at first, but then the blonde is disappointed to discover what the brunette was really getting at.

But she still drives the car for the blonde, because she secretly loves her and will do anything for her even without the hope of reciprocated love. Sadly, she will go on thinking "maybe next year" while she helps the brunette live out other dreams. It's beautiful, in a poignant sort of way.

Blondie is a lesbian because she is afraid of snakes, which are phallic creatures and thus represent men. When non-blondie says that she is afraid of living for the moment, blondie takes that as a sign that their friendship may be more, and begins to ask non-blondie if she shares the same feelings that she herself has felt about their relationship.

However, she is rebuffed by an unknowing non-blondie who confesses her wish to be a storm chaser instead of revealing any romantic interest. Dismayed, she is forced to endure storm chasing while feeling that her romantic attraction towards her friend may never be fully realised.

I think this is the interpretation that is most favourable to the comic.

Ok, I'm too lazy to do another edit, but imagine in the 3rd panel she says "I want to be a muff diver", and in the 4th panel they drive together towards a giant hairy muff (just erase the top of tornado, and it totally looks like pubic hair!)

Ehh, I saw the lesbianism side of it too -- I don't think it's a stretch at all. I didn't notice at first that both stick figures were women (presumably) in the first panel, because I was looking at the snake, so when I got to the second panel I at first thought she was either asking out or breaking up with the Ubiquitous Protagonist. Then the third panel had me looking back at the first one.

The whole "it's always too complicated" type of speech is a pretty common Relationships! trope.

The beat panel made it for me. She was trying to figure out to what the other chick was referring. I like to think the blond was going to ask something about getting married or having children, but then then the brunette's like, "No I wanna be a storm chaser." I like the way she cuts her off, too. The way I imagine it, it amuses me.And then bam! Sudden jarring shot of them chasin' some storms.

I hear that this is a basically the same as some other stuff Randall's done, but I have a shitty memory, so I am judging it like that: just what I'm seeing.

The two women represent two parts of Randall's psyche.The blonde one represents Randall's hatred of people who have longer "snakes" than he does.The non-blone one represents Randall's reccuring thought that he might actually have basic humanity for said men, hence "it's complicated", and how he wishes he could just go back to his good ol' days of drawing comics where they die painfully without being morally conflicted.The random "I want to chase storms" comment represents how these sections of his psyche will often pop up completely randomly and interrupt whatever he's doing.The tornado represents Randall's ability to make a decent comic.

The alt-text represents Randall's fear of being pelted by airborne dongs.

I agree with you on most parts of this critique in that I find the comic funnier than usual. However, you guys have got to stop showing that other comics did these jokes before. Yes, sometimes its relevant, but more often then not its just a coincidence. I mean really, SMBC did it two years ago? I'd be hard pressed to remember a comic I saw two months ago, let alone two years. Plus, anyone who's taken a week of statistics has the phrase "correlation does not equal causation" ingrained into their head. Anyways, with the sheer number of people there are on the internet nowadays, the chances of someone having expressed a certain idea before you is extremely high, no matter how original you might think you are. I guess I'm just saying that the fact that someone's done a specific comic idea before isn't a sign that Randall's plagiarizing them, its just a coincidence.

Comics like those convince me that Carl is NOT Randall and Randall is NOT Carl. Basically if Carl was just a pseudonym for Randall to make fun of his own stuff, the posts would read somewhat like this:

"That is a comic. I don't like the comic. The comic makes me sad, and I feel brokenhearted and stylishly upset in a sexy way. It makes me think of the Bellman-Ford Algorithm because, hey, that comic is really bad! Why don't all the people in the world sort of agree that xkcd is really bad and its badness is a nuisance and the nuisance I feel is pretty sexy, mmm, I like girls. Girls are cute. Do you like baloons? I like baloons with girls in them."

I'd be hard pressed to remember a comic I saw two months ago, let alone two years.

Unlike you, we have functional memories. We pay attention to things we read every once in a while.

I guess I'm just saying that the fact that someone's done a specific comic idea before isn't a sign that Randall's plagiarizing them, its just a coincidence.

It doesn't have to be Outright Intentional Mustache-Twirling Plagiarism for it to be a bad thing. What's the saying--if you're not the first, it's a good idea to be the best? Randall, naturally, is neither.

But if he wanted to show the kid's innocence, he could have just mentioned how those girls weren't covered in suntan lotion or something. Using the phrase "double-penetration" means he's forced to use awkward dialogue in order to get the point across. It's not a terrible comic, but it is still clunky and Randall still needs to work on that.

As for 752, I find it amusing. Randall knows his audience is now comprised of man-children who got something deep from the idea of the ballpit room.

He truly gets that his audience's analytical brains let them down with worries and fear about taking risks. However, he has the solution:

Let them live vicariously through his comics.

Forumites seem to fetishise that need to take a daring risk and act like children without regard for consequences. It's kind of cute, if a little frustrating.

As others have said, we don't get to see the consequences of this. Were it a larger strip, where we saw the life left behind, it could actually be funny or meaningful. Divorced of all context, it just becomes a stick-figure realisation of a personal fantasy. Hence the lesbians.

On the plus side, one of them is an actual character. I have a sneaky feeling the character is either Randall or Megan, but aren't they always?

I expect that the child isn't supposed to know what double penetration actuslly is, but has just seen naked pictures of them in ads which make claims about double penetration.

I suppose it would be silly to think that he's never clicked on any of those ads, but I don't know. Maybe he's too young to be interested and simply has the "never click on pop ups" instinct that all internet users develop. When I read the comic I just personally assumed that he had only seen the ads but nothing more.

yes I actually just hacked into the blog by guessing Carl's secret password question. (PS HEY CARL, 'MRS. WHEELER' IS NOT YOUR MOTHER'S MAIDEN NAME) and gave myself access. i'm not even a proper guest poster

Is it just me, or does the hair of the blonde (who I thought was a dude with a mullet at first) seem to change between panels 1 and 3? In the first panel it has that part in the middle, but it's gone in the third.

HOLY SHIT XKCD has ripped off SMBC, ONLY SMBC COULD POSSIBLY THINK OF SOMETHING AS DEEPLY INSIGHTFUL AND ORIGINAL AS PORTRAYING CHILDREN AS MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT SEX THEN WE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH, AND THEN MADE A FUNNY COMIC ABOUT.

Seriously, it's an incredibility common idea in humor hardly unique to SMBC and it hasn't really got that much in common beyond that, and frankly if two years wasn't long enough to repeat the SAME BASIC IDEA, then the author of SMBC would have run out of ideas long ago. To be fair so would everybody else too.

"HOLY SHIT XKCD has ripped off SMBC, ONLY SMBC COULD POSSIBLY THINK OF SOMETHING AS DEEPLY INSIGHTFUL AND ORIGINAL AS PORTRAYING CHILDREN AS MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT SEX THEN WE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH, AND THEN MADE A FUNNY COMIC ABOUT.

Seriously, it's an incredibility common idea in humor hardly unique to SMBC and it hasn't really got that much in common beyond that, and frankly if two years wasn't long enough to repeat the SAME BASIC IDEA, then the author of SMBC would have run out of ideas long ago. To be fair so would everybody else too."

I'd... actually agree with the Generic Voice dudes, Carl really does love jumping he gun with comparing two comics together and claiming one's ripping off the other, just because they've got the same premises.

Well no, I'd normally agree, but in this case I think Carl just completely missed the joke in the SMBC one (that kids see so much stuff online that kids teach parents about sex instead). But my point still stands, Carl does it too much.

I think the worst instance was when he said a Happiness And Cyanide comic was ripping off a Perry Bible Fellowship comic because they both had a joke, completely different jokes, involving a pun on "hangman".

Before I get started I just want to say I think this site is hilarious (I word I can't spell without Google). I hope the author means it tongue-in-cheek, as the subtitle suggests, because the main humor is that he is critiquing to an almost literary level a stick figure comic. That thought alone makes me smile.

The original post.

Yes SMBC did do a similar comic first, but not the same comic. The joke is different, the subject matter is the same. The joke in SMBC is basically that the father is completely ignorant of things that go on in the world. It can easily taken in two ways. First way, The father sits down to explain sex to his son and quickly discovers that he doesn't know that much. That is a very old joke, going back to pre-internet days. Second way, in my opinion the funnier one, the father sits down, then asks the son to show him about sex. Not positive but I think that's a pretty old joke too.Either way the humor is about the father not knowing less about sex than his kid. In contrast XKCD's joke is about the father not knowing what his kid knows about sex. There might be added humor in the innocence of the kid. I'm undecided as to whether that adds anything for me.

As for Friday's comic, you are all hating on it because it contains no lulz. Well most of his comics don't. That's not the point. Is it deep and meaningful? No. That's not the point either, or if it is Mr. Monroe has indeed failed as miserably as you have accused him. I feel the point is to be cute though. Think of Calvin and Hobbes. There were plenty of comics that had no punchline, most notably the last one. It speaks to a longing for a simpler, happier life.I'm not going to pick apart the art as minimalistic. I'm not going to give a panel by panel breakdown of the meaning and execution of the comic. IT'S FUCKING STICK FIGURES. I will make one quick point. It is similar, though not the same(definitely not the same as 167 or 163, if anything it's closer to the lighthouse comic) as some of the older comics, but it has different elements and a different course of events that portrays the same theme and ends at the same conclusion. Sounds like half of the literary world. Well at least like Vonegut(spelling?) and Becket(spelling?)

The art cripples the execution. Randall's style can work, but he tends to substitute nuances by telling you about them in the dialogue or caption whereas in another comic you'd just pick it up in the art. He also seems to be hesitant to rework or trash comics that go against his style, either over-explaining the subtleties or not explaining enough.

Also ugliness is not a part of his style. It's a lack of effort. The stick figures are usually OK but when he tries to do more it's usually an eye-sore.

You can't argue that bad/lazy art affects the comic's quality because that's silly.

"As for Friday's comic, you are all hating on it because it contains no lulz. Well most of his comics don't."

Timofei's edit is absolutely a million times worse than the original, and that's saying a lot. The original just made me sit there for a moment thinking "oh wait what is this what?" and so on before deciding there was no joke. Timofei's "joke" caused me to throw my computer out the window, smash my TV with my keyboard, and then break things in the kitchen until I got tired and fell asleep.Well ok it didn't do that but it did create a situation where I had to actually spend real mental effort to prevent myself from doing that, a situation that no XKCD ever has put me into.

Anon 12:40,As far as we can tell, it's either:1: Randall thinks that the very concept of a plot twist, no matter WHAT the context is or what it's related to, is inherently entertaining! Ditto for storm chasing.2: As XKCDexplained said, it's basically an indie film summarised into five panels.3: Randall made this comic for the SOLE purpose of laughing at how his fanbase think ANYTHING is good, no matter how unfunny or nonsensical it is; especially if it involes a panel that's artistically great for XKCD, despite that in any other webcomic it would be rconsidered ubbish!

@Anon 4:35Carl seemed to think it was funny considering he made a joke about the same subject matter and never actually criticized the idea or even the execution, not even the art style. So it's fine if SMBC uses an unfunny, unoriginal idea, it's perfectly fine but if xkcd does it, it's ripping off SMBC but he isn't and neither is SMBC.As to your other comment. I guess you thought of this as repeating an old, tired joke and I thought of it as being more of two similar but still unique variations on the classic theme of children with more knowledge then adults are comfortable with. So to me it would be like Colbert only being allowed to talk about bears, politics and fox news once every two years.

To me, SMBC is less pretentious and has better artwork but just because you work harder at something doesn't mean it can't be stupid. I would like to point out that Carl never said anything about the actual comic, other then to defend it. It's like just before posting he didn't like it, and stumbled on a smbc comic and thought that was more interesting.

why does a site like this exist just to slag off another geeky comic site, 3 times a week, surely you have better things to do! surely this take a lot of effort, stop wasting your life, go play some games, get rinsed, see some friends, do coke,just stop being so petty. i like xkcd, its hit and miss but dont spend my entire life bitching about it. just seems a bit creepy to me

What the hell is this?

Welcome. This is a website called XKCD SUCKS which is about the webcomic xkcd and why we think it sucks. My name is Carl and I used to write about it all the time, then I stopped because I went insane, and now other people write about it all the time. I forget their names. The posts still seem to be coming regularly, but many of the structural elements - like all the stuff in this lefthand pane - are a bit outdated. What can I say? Insane, etc.

I started this site because it had been clear to me for a while that xkcd is no longer a great webcomic (though it once was). Alas, many of its fans are too caught up in the faux-nerd culture that xkcd is a part of, and can't bring themselves to admit that the comic, at this point, is terrible. While I still like a new comic on occasion, I feel that more and more of them need the Iron Finger of Mockery knowingly pointed at them. This used to be called "XKCD: Overrated", but then it fell from just being overrated to being just horrible. Thus, xkcd sucks.

Here is a comic about me that Ann made. It is my favorite thing in the world.

Frequently Asked Questions

Divided into two convenient categories, based on whether you think this website

Rob's Rants

When he's not flipping a shit over prescriptivist and descriptivist uses of language, xkcdsucks' very own Rob likes writing long blocks of text about specific subjects. Here are some of his excellent refutations of common responses to this site. Think of them as a sort of in-depth FAQ, for people inclined to disagree with this site.